Much has been written this last fortnight on the return home to Australia of convicted Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange. Many, in fact, most, have hailed him as an almost martyr figure. Our prime minister has personally called him to welcome him home, Australian ambassador to the United States, Kevin Rudd, has a deep need to be constantly seen with him, and journalists all over the nation are feting him as a champion of free speech - who has paid a terrible price for his brave, noble actions. I’m sure you’ve been listening to it all.
Free speech is one of the pillars of a free society. It is so sacrosanct that wars have been fought to protect and preserve it. It is a key part of a democratic society where journalists and others can keep those in all kinds of authority, or leadership, to account. A free press has been described as the “fourth estate”, (previously, the “fourth power”). The origins of the term are interesting. According to Wikipedia (not Wikileaks), ”the term “The term Fourth Estate, or Fourth Power”, refers to the press and news media both in explicit capacity of advocacy and implicit ability to frame political issues. The derivation of the term arises from the traditional European concept of the three estates of the realm: the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners.” The equivalent term "fourth power" first used by late 18th century British parliamentarian, Edmund Burke, morphed into “fourth estate”. The historical context of the fourth estate idea recognises that there are (or were) key bodies and voices in society that, balanced against each other, give or take, meant that freedom of speech, the right for the public to know, advocacy and justice, respectful public discourse and the polite debate of ideas, by and large, worked pretty well together. Each held the other to account - often via the law.
But that has changed since the turn of the century, especially in the west. With the “woke-ification” of western culture in dozens of ways, as the “clergy” (or Christian voice) has been marginalised, the nobility becoming increasingly irrelevant, and the commoners’ voice, (the elected government of the day) pretty much hijacked by idealogues and increasingly distrusted. The fourth estate is now pretty much a law unto itself. We the people cannot keep them to account – for anything. They decide what news we get, what ideas are acceptable in “main stream Australia” (which is anything but today!), and what moral, political and social ideas are acceptable. Not to mention, also, that it has massive power to intimidate government.
And so, Assange. He is now the current hero of the fourth estate. He who took on the United States and leaked classified documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts is now the great hero of free speech. But, is he really? The role of the fourth estate was, until recently, to keep government and the other key voices to account – and to do this fairly, legally and responsibly. The elements of legality, fairness and responsibility have almost disappeared.
Many think Assange’s actions uncovered wrong doing and exposed corruption and so on. Maybe it did. Other anti-American voices delighted in the embarrassment and humiliation it all caused the United States. But is this how freedom of speech should be used? Weaponised to humiliate and embarrass? Former foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said on June 28th(Sky News), “I find it pretty extraordinary that Julian Assange would be given a hero’s welcome. Here is a man who... undermined the security of American soldiers and American diplomats — embarrassed and humiliated America.”
And, right there, Downer highlights the critical balancing act between the public’s right to know, and moral responsibility which is inherent in the exercise of free speech. The thousands of classified documents Assange illegally obtained by hacking into United States government’s data systems (a serious crime in any country), and then leaking them potentially put many ordinary people - diplomats, embassy staff, soldiers and local workers – in danger in war zones. When first challenged about this, Assange did not care. "Well, they're informants, … if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." – that’s on the record. Fortunately, his staff were able to persuade him to redact actual names before leaking the documents. The danger was still real enough. But the ends justify the means. Free speech? I get it that corruption needs to be exposed. I do! The Watergate scandal exposed by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post in the 1970’s is a classic case of outstanding investigative journalism – the fourth estate – holding government to account. No innocents were harmed, no crimes were committed in the process. But Assange’s behaviour bordered on anarchic – yet he is feted by the Australian media, and the prime minister. Now the Melbourne City Council wants to throw him a civic reception.
Journalist, Rowan Dean, said in Spectator Magazine last Friday, “Assange is just a glorified computer hacker, with no interest in the morality and ethics of his morally dubious activities, instead being motivated by the base thrill of the hacking chase and the adulation (and moolah) that has come his way.” I find it hard to disagree. When the ends justify the means, especially where freedom of speech and individual rights is concerned, we’re in very dangerous waters. Many journalists over the last few years have defended Assange’s illegal hacking and leaking activities, yet would never dare to do the same – because they know such behaviour is unethical and places others at risk. This is a far cry from responsible journalism that takes freedom of speech and the well-being of community seriously.
The fourth estate in this country, in feting Assange, is now a parody of itself. And the Assange story is just one example of this. Remember the Brittany Higgins debacle, aided and abetted by the fourth estate? In his classic, two act play, “A Man for All Seasons”, Robert Bolt has a scene that powerfully portrays the danger of justifying the breaking of the law to achieve a supposedly just outcome. Here, Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII’s chancellor, is arguing with his lawyer son-in-law, William Roper, frustrated that evil is winning.
Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
The lesson here is that the fourth estate – and the activist classes, as well - is so very close to Roper’s mindset that they do not see the grave danger. Which is that they, themselves, may well be the tool the devil uses to encourage the rise of lawlessness in our land. As difficult and as frustrating as it may be to see justice slow to be done, cutting corners and making exceptions is a major threat to our way of life - and nearly all our freedoms.
Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)
“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”
Think on these things … and pray for our nation.
Ps Milton
[Sources: Wikipedia; Sky News; Spectator Magazine, 5/07/24; Assange quoted in The Guardian, 18th Sept, 2011; Robert Bolt, “A Man for All Seasons”]